[Vampyr]

shyams, on 2011-October-09, 08:57, said:

Cascade and others are approaching it from an angle of one player being allowed to slow down table tempo(?) deliberately.

If a player attempts to slow down the "table tempo" deliberately, that is a disciplinary matter. Normally a player will cause play to be delayed briefly in order to think, and this is quite proper.

[Vampyr]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-09, 09:40, said:

If a player attempts to slow down the "table tempo" deliberately, that is a disciplinary matter.

I think I wrote too quickly here. There are some players who attempt to speed up the play, and their opponents, who can't play properly at lightning speed, sometimes get sucked in and play just as quickly, to their detriment. In this case it is appropriate to deliberately slow down the tempo of play.

What I was referring to in the quote above, and what cascade is apparently worrying about, is people who slow the play in order to disconcert the opponents.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2011-October-09, 00:35, said:

No, because the call for the Director is

Law 74B5 said:

summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

Added after seeing your last post: Instead of calling the Director I think what you say there is the only acceptable way of handling the situation. And I take the liberty to state that we apparently have identical views on this. Having already led (in turn) to the next trick should not cause any problem and is immaterial here.

What I said was that it was not the manner, but the calling itself, that you seem to consider discourteous. Calling the director is a right of every player. Absent continuous and frivolous calls, exercising that right cannot in itself be discourteous to anyone.

Our views are not identical, because I can see the possibility of a fifth card on the table causing problems, and you apparently cannot. Now it does occur to me to wonder what the laws should tell the leader to do with that card before facing his card from the previous trick. I suppose it would be best for him to keep his hand on the latter card.

Vampyr, on 2011-October-09, 06:47, said:

I don't know Wayne myself, but I think that it's entirely possible that he and the others have no intention of engaging in these antics at the table, and are just maintaining their position to be outrageous.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

shyams, on 2011-October-09, 08:57, said:

Blackshoe, you are a forum moderator. I don't think the 2nd sentence was necessary.

Yes, I'm a forum moderator. I've been doing that, in various genres, for thirty years. As for the sentence, no, it wasn't necessary. So what? Was it out of line? I don't think so, or I wouldn't have posted it.

[AlexJonson]

I thought the comment was out of line and it's a pity we can't have a view from a 'moderator'.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 17:38, said:

Having produced a totally different situation where there was no refusal to follow a TD's instructions I consider this a deliberate misquote. You know perfectly well that a DP is not suitable for thinking and suggesting it is would be pointless if it were not that some people do not check when you quote something and so may be misled by you.

So I missed out a step where the director gave an instruction. Yes I understand it an important step.

My point was are you going to treat both sides who are annoying their opponents by there actions in the same way.

That is the player delaying the game annoying the player who wants to play to the next trick and the player who is turning his card over and leading to the next trick. Do you warn them both and slap them both with a DP if they don't comply?

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-09, 06:47, said:

I don't know Wayne myself, but I think that it's entirely possible that he and the others have no intention of engaging in these antics at the table, and are just maintaining their position to be outrageous.

I am not attempting to be outrageous. I believe that the laws do not give a player the right to delay the game by keeping his card face up. Facing a card is so that players can see the card and not to buy time to think.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-October-09, 16:19, said:

I am not attempting to be outrageous. I believe that the laws do not give a player the right to delay the game by keeping his card face up. Facing a card is so that players can see the card and not to buy time to think.

What do you mean by "buying time to think"? If other players feel the way you do, you have to keep all the cards faced if you wish to think at the end of the trick; otherwise the opponents might lead to the next trick before you are ready.

Now, if you let the opponent lead before you are ready, you may not have planned whatever action you were going to take on the next trick, so you may not do it smoothly. Is this the problem? Do you feel that you have the right to know every time the play of a card is critical for the opponent, and worry that you lose that advantage if he takes the time to plan several tricks in advance or attempts to figure out what is going on in the hand?

Sorry, but you don't have the right to force opponents to give away their holdings by thinking only before they play a card.

[blackshoe]

AlexJonson, on 2011-October-09, 15:29, said:

I thought the comment was out of line and it's a pity we can't have a view from a 'moderator'.

You don't want a view from a moderator, you want a view from a moderator who agrees with you.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2011-October-09, 16:19, said:

I am not attempting to be outrageous. I believe that the laws do not give a player the right to delay the game by keeping his card face up. Facing a card is so that players can see the card and not to buy time to think.

It's also necessary to exercise your right to have everyone else face their cards of the last trick.

Traditional practice is that the simple act of keeping your card faced is recognized as implying this request. And once you comply, he signals that he no longer needs to see your cards by turning his card. It's a simple, intuitive convention.

[bluejak]

AlexJonson, on 2011-October-09, 15:29, said:

I thought the comment was out of line and it's a pity we can't have a view from a 'moderator'.

Since the comment used the word 'if' and since it was a direct consequence of the posts I think it would be acceptable from anyone else. Therefore it is just as acceptable from Ed who follows the same rules.

If someone slows play down in an unacceptable fashion for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent then the TD has the power to deal with it. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

The discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by not showing his card when asked for a reasonable time: no, he isn't.

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

The reasons given for these actions are fairly fatuous which is what seems to be winding several other people up.

Just to summarise: bad behaviour is controlled by the Laws. Bad behaviour just because a player feels someone else is behaving badly is illegal and unnecessary. Leading to the next trick when the present is not quitted is bad behaviour.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-October-10, 08:18, said:

Since the comment used the word 'if' and since it was a direct consequence of the posts I think it would be acceptable from anyone else. Therefore it is just as acceptable from Ed who follows the same rules.

If someone slows play down in an unacceptable fashion for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent then the TD has the power to deal with it. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

The discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by not showing his card when asked for a reasonable time: no, he isn't.

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

The reasons given for these actions are fairly fatuous which is what seems to be winding several other people up.

Just to summarise: bad behaviour is controlled by the Laws. Bad behaviour just because a player feels someone else is behaving badly is illegal and unnecessary. Leading to the next trick when the present is not quitted is bad behaviour.

While I agree with most of this I still have a problem with your statement:

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

When I have seen such leads it has always been because the player was unaware that one of the other players had not turned his card face down and not with the intention of disconcerting anybody.

You can of course use Law 74B1 against him because of his lacking attention, but is that really an advisable approach against a player who apparently intends no harm with his play in what he apparently thinks is proper tempo? And from all my experience I flatly refuse any assertion that such (slightly) premature leads can cause any problem.

If you have found a law (other than L74B1) making it illegal to lead to the next trick with the current one not quitted (although completed) I would appreciate learning what law that could be rather than just reading words like fatuous as part of your argumentation.

[AlexJonson]

This topic is about changing L44G to state explicitly that you cannot lead to the second or subsequent tricks until the previous trick has been quitted as described in L65A...

This is (IMO) a perfectly sensible suggestion for clarification of a specific aspect of correct procedure.

The problem is complicated by the fact that L65A is not too cleverly written either, so that various people believe it allows a player to not quit the current trick for an undefined period of time, while they 'think', while Cascade, perfectly reasonably (whether or not you agree with him), says L65A should not be read as intending to allow a player to sit thinking, with his card faced.

It is clear that a player can keep his card faced while he inspects the current trick. It is no help that L66A is not too cleverly written either. As a result some people think that L66A overrides L65A and requires that all players keep their cards faced until the player requesting the inspection turns his. But of course L66A doesn't say anything like that, and Cascade quite reasonably (whether you agree with him or not) takes the view that after you have allowed your quitted card to be inspected you can revert to the stipulations of L65A and turn it over.

So it seems to me we have a reasonable debate about what some of the Laws are intended for, and that personal criticism, whether or not conditional, is not called for.

Of course none of this overrides the TDs responsibility to keep the game proceeding in an orderly way and I think Bluejak is entirely right to take the sort of actions he mentions.

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-09, 16:29, said:

What do you mean by "buying time to think"? If other players feel the way you do, you have to keep all the cards faced if you wish to think at the end of the trick; otherwise the opponents might lead to the next trick before you are ready.

That is their right.

The trick has been won. Its time to play the next trick.

It is wrong to vary one's tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. But to simply lead to the next trick in normal tempo having won the previous trick is not an infraction.

Quote

Now, if you let the opponent lead before you are ready, you may not have planned whatever action you were going to take on the next trick, so you may not do it smoothly. Is this the problem? Do you feel that you have the right to know every time the play of a card is critical for the opponent, and worry that you lose that advantage if he takes the time to plan several tricks in advance or attempts to figure out what is going on in the hand?

Sorry, but you don't have the right to force opponents to give away their holdings by thinking only before they play a card.

If the opponents give away their holdings that is their problem.

There are lots of times to think about the current trick and the hand as a whole. You don't have to think only before you play a card. You can think while others are playing cards. You can think while others are thinking. However if a player needs to break tempo to think and this gives away information that is entirely that player's problem. (Unless an opponent has played unusually quickly to cause a tempo problem - see the thread I started called Rodwell Quote.)

You don't "let" an opponent lead. The opponent who has won the previous trick is on lead and is allowed to lead in normal tempo. There is no rule that allows an opponent to control when the leader can play a card. I play my cards when I am ready, my opponent also plays cards when ready. We are each responsible for problems caused by our own variations in tempo.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-October-10, 08:18, said:

Since the comment used the word 'if' and since it was a direct consequence of the posts I think it would be acceptable from anyone else. Therefore it is just as acceptable from Ed who follows the same rules.

If someone slows play down in an unacceptable fashion for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent then the TD has the power to deal with it. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

The discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by not showing his card when asked for a reasonable time: no, he isn't.

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

The reasons given for these actions are fairly fatuous which is what seems to be winding several other people up.

Just to summarise: bad behaviour is controlled by the Laws. Bad behaviour just because a player feels someone else is behaving badly is illegal and unnecessary. Leading to the next trick when the present is not quitted is bad behaviour.

I don't think this is a very accurate summary of the discussion.

In particular I have not argued anywhere to not show a card or to lead to the next trick for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

You are facing your card for the benefit of the opponent. It is obvious that you must allow that opponent to take in the what card has been played. In most cases though it will not take too long to take in the rank and denomination of the card.

When you lead to the next trick you lead because it is your turn to lead. There is no requirement to wait until some other player has quit a trick. The purpose is not to disconcert an opponent simple progress the game in normal tempo.

I don't believe the arguments are fatuous. The arguments have been based on the laws. The thread is about whether the law needs to be changed. Some have argued no because they believe their current practice is supported by the law. However as far as I can tell they have not yet referenced the law that requires a player to not lead until all players have quit the previous trick.

I don't really care if the law is changed or not. I do care if interpretations are made, especially heavy handed interpretations involving DP and the like as David suggests, that punish or manipulate a player for doing what is not disallowed.

I can see nothing in the current law that suggests that its purpose is to allow a player who has not won a trick to purposefully delay the play to the next trick.

Finally, I don't think ad hominem attacks that are thinly disguised with a conditional "if" are any more acceptable than direct personal attacks. In this case the insult is in the condition not the conclusion. That is there is a difference between "If you are a *&^% then ..." and "If you .... then you are a *&^%".

[shyams]

Cascade, on 2011-October-10, 14:24, said:

Finally, I don't think ad hominem attacks that are thinly disguised with a conditional "if" are any more acceptable than direct personal attacks. In this case the insult is in the condition not the conclusion. That is there is a difference between "If you are a *&^% then ..." and "If you .... then you are a *&^%".

Agree completely.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-October-10, 08:51, said:

While I agree with most of this I still have a problem with your statement:

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

When I have seen such leads it has always been because the player was unaware that one of the other players had not turned his card face down and not with the intention of disconcerting anybody.

You can of course use Law 74B1 against him because of his lacking attention, but is that really an advisable approach against a player who apparently intends no harm with his play in what he apparently thinks is proper tempo? And from all my experience I flatly refuse any assertion that such (slightly) premature leads can cause any problem.

If you have found a law (other than L74B1) making it illegal to lead to the next trick with the current one not quitted (although completed) I would appreciate learning what law that could be rather than just reading words like fatuous as part of your argumentation.

I just do not understand this sort of post. Why on earth would anyone penalise someone who does something wrong unintentionally?

Just because you are not meant to lead to the next trick until this one is quitted does not mean I am going to penalise anyone for so doing in general. Of course you do not penalise for things like that unless there is something considerably more to it.

This incredible idea that you have to penalise for any infraction is beyond me. Fortunately it is beyond the vast majority of players and TDs also so it does not happen.

[mycroft]

I think that if there are disagreements that are not cleared in the laws between behaviours that there should be a clarification or new law that sets it - which is, of course, why this is here.

I think, Cascade, that if you pulled that "I'm just leading in natural tempo, you have to play to mine" when it goes play, play, play, pitch - and I suddenly realize I have to find a couple more pitches than I was planning on - and then you're claiming that I'm hitching to the next trick when I'm not done with the last - that when the TD arrives, things are going to be mildly unpleasant. Play at whatever speed you want - so will I. If that means I have to think to the last trick until I'm ready; well, that's my tempo. Yes, there are other places to think - but there are times when one needs to think and one doesn't have control of the trick or any other place to do it - and players should be able to control that tempo should they need it. The fact that the way they normally do it doesn't explicitly by law cause it to happen means that, again, the law needs to be clarified one way or the other.

I think that what Vampyr is saying is so common behaviour, throughout the world, that the fact that it's not specifically cited in the Laws as correct behaviour would be surprising to most, and anyone that tried to argue that it is *not* correct behaviour, or more than that, not legal, would be looked at askew, at least.

The same goes for the "okay, you've seen it, I'm putting it away again." You don't get to determine for how long I need to see it to work out what's going on. Some people can only think visually, and without it face up, until it's in their own mental map, no processing can take place. So I think you'll get the "No, I said I'd like to see the trick" response from me and others until you leave it available for me to see until *I* don't need it any more.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2011-October-10, 14:24, said:

Finally, I don't think ad hominem attacks that are thinly disguised with a conditional "if" are any more acceptable than direct personal attacks. In this case the insult is in the condition not the conclusion. That is there is a difference between "If you are a *&^% then ..." and "If you .... then you are a *&^%".

For the record, it was not intended as a personal attack. I don't know you, other than by your posts here, so I have no idea if you, at the bridge table, fit the description in the conditional. So if you don't fit the condition, the conclusion does not apply. I do stand by my opinion that for anyone who does fit the conditional, the conclusion does apply.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-10, 19:48, said:

For the record, it was not intended as a personal attack. I don't know you, other than by your posts here, so I have no idea if you, at the bridge table, fit the description in the conditional. So if you don't fit the condition, the conclusion does not apply. I do stand by my opinion that for anyone who does fit the conditional, the conclusion does apply.

Perhaps you should reread what you wrote. It certainly seems personal to me. The paragraph in question begins with my personal name. The second sentence uses a personal pronoun seemingly referring to the proper noun (me) in the first sentence. I can't see another way to read that.

Yes there is a condition. The condition however is suggestive. The statement in the fisrt sentence is that I am acting like a "Secretary Bird" and the suggestion in the second sentence is that the "Secretary Bird" is "that big a prick". The condition is if I act like this at the table but that does not diminish from the comparison to a "Secretary Bird" and the labeling of that character as a "prick".

From which it is hard to accept that the comment was "not intended as a personal attack".

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-October-10, 16:45, said:

I just do not understand this sort of post. Why on earth would anyone penalise someone who does something wrong unintentionally?

Just because you are not meant to lead to the next trick until this one is quitted does not mean I am going to penalise anyone for so doing in general. Of course you do not penalise for things like that unless there is something considerably more to it.

This incredible idea that you have to penalise for any infraction is beyond me. Fortunately it is beyond the vast majority of players and TDs also so it does not happen.

What are you talking about???

I asked you for a clarification (law reference) on why it is (in your opinion) illegal for a player who has won the last trick to lead to the next trick before all four cards to the current (and completed) trick have been turned face down?

You carefully avoid that question and instead present some rubbish about not understanding why anybody would penalise.

If (as far as I have noted in this thread) anybody has suggested penalising a lead to the next trick before all cards to the last trick have been quitted it is you. I have certainly not suggested so; in fact my position is that so long as no law has been presented as making an action illegal there is no foundation for rectification or for penalising that action whether it is intentional or unintentional.

Let us agree that any (deliberate) action apparently taken for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent is a violation of Law 74. That is not, and never has been what this thread is about.

The questions are:
1: Do we have a law that forbids a premature lead to the next trick by the player who has won the last trick?
2: Do we need such a law?

My answers are "no" to both questions.